Sunday, August 30 , 2015, 4:31 pm | Fair 85.0º




Lou Cannon: States Still Perched on Edge of Fiscal Cliff

By Lou Cannon, State Net Capitol Journal |

States emerged outwardly unscathed from the New Year’s Day congressional fix that prevented the economy from tumbling off the fiscal cliff, but statehouse fiscal officers aren’t popping the corks of any leftover champagne.

Congress averted the likelihood of a recession by passing HR 8, which held taxes level for 99 percent of Americans and extended jobless insurance for the long-time unemployed.

Despite the anxiety and partisanship surrounding the last-minute approval of this legislation, it was a relatively easy decision for Congress: the jobless benefits are necessary and lower taxes are popular. What isn’t popular are the cuts in government services that some president and some Congress will eventually be forced to make, with the national debt at $16 trillion and growing exponentially. Congress, however, has turned delay into an art form. HR 8 put off the hard choices by postponing for two months massive domestic and defense budget cuts — known as a “sequestration” — that were due to kick in automatically on Jan. 1.

This delay could wind up squeezing states, said Scott D. Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers. If Congress and President Barack Obama go ahead with the sequestration in March, he said, states would be affected at the very time they’re preparing budgets for the next fiscal year.

Congress “left uncertainty on the table,” said Michael Bird, general affairs counsel of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). He observed that if Congress eventually makes significant budget cuts, states and local governments would be forced to accomplish in nine months what they would have had a year to do if the sequestration had gone into effect as scheduled. Had Congress passed the full sequestration package, it would have cost states some $13 billion in federal aid this year, he said.

It’s not only states that are uncertain. Deploring the limits of the congressional fix, The Economist wrote that Congress had failed to control the unsustainable path of health-care spending and other entitlements and nothing to reform the “hideously complex and distorting tax code ... and virtually nothing to close America’s big structural budget deficit.”

The stock market enjoyed a relief rally after HR 8 was passed, but many analysts see rough waters ahead as Congress debates whether to increase the debt limit. Congressional Republicans are determined to obtain spending cuts as a condition of voting for the debt limit increase despite Obama’s insistence that he will not negotiate on this issue.

Public credit is also at risk. The ratings agency, Standard & Poor’s, issued a report in December declaring that a weak economy threatened the credit rating of state and local governments. Because of the unresolved budget cuts, passage of HR 8 has only partially lifted this “fiscal cloud,” S&P said in a Jan. 2 statement.

Viewed in isolation, HR 8 is mildly helpful to states in the short run. The measure extended more than four dozen individual, business and energy tax credits, as well as optional state and local sales tax deductions. States also will benefit if postponement of the budget cuts boosts the anemic economic recovery. States are still feeling the effects of the Great Recession; Pattison says revenues have not reached 2008 levels when adjusted for inflation.

The long-run concerns of the states are multiple — and divergent. Eight states — Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming — are scheduled to pass budgets and wrap up their sessions in late March or early April. Unless they have what Bird calls “just-in-case funds” in their budgets to make up for reductions in federal aid, these states presumably would have to go back into session and revise their budgets to accommodate any cuts in federal aid. Vermont and Virginia currently have such funds in their budgets.

Six states will have income tax revenues reduced by HR 8, which raised federal income taxes on individuals making more than $400,000 and families making more than $450,000. Alabama, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana and Oregon allow taxpayers to deduct federal income taxes on state returns, meaning that higher federal taxes reduce state revenues.

HR 8 also eliminated the state estate tax credit, which returned a share of federal inheritance taxes to states. Some states had anticipated this. The California budget, for instance, included a reduction in another fund that offsets the loss of $45 million from the state estate tax credit this year.

All these tax changes are minor in comparison to the negative economic impact that would be experienced in several states if Congress decides to impose the immense reductions in the defense budget that were contained in the sequester. This would especially harm states with many military bases and installations, among them California, Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Washington and Virginia.

Congress passed HR 8 after Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, tried and failed for the second time to secure what has been called a “grand bargain” that would include tax reform and entitlement cuts. Despite Boehner’s inability to win support from conservatives in his House Republican caucus for tax increases and opposition from liberal Democrats to spending cuts in Medicare or Social Security, talk of a “mini-bargain” remains alive.

Such a bargain would inevitably include changes in the tax law to reduce or eliminate various deductions or loopholes. States want to preserve the present deductions for state and local taxes that taxpayers are allowed to take on their federal returns.

Beyond the tax laws, states are wary of any attempt to reduce the federal share of programs in which costs are shared with the states. Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care for the poor, is a particular concern. The sequester exempted Medicaid from cuts, but Congress could revisit the issue.

“States are nervous about Medicaid,” Bird said.

He said the timing would not be right for changes in the existing formula, as states wrestle with implementing the federal health-care law. The centerpiece of Obamacare, as even Obama now calls it, is the creation of accessible marketplaces known as exchanges in which individuals and families will be able to shop online for affordable health-care policies. Only 18 states have signed up to create the exchanges, which are supposed to be established by October with the first policies offered on Jan. 1, 2014.

But even if Congress leaves well enough alone on Medicaid, states are inevitably going to be faced with reductions in federal aid. Federal aid on “discretionary spending” — programs that include education and community services, among other things — was reduced by more than 4 percent in 2011 and by 2.7 percent in 2012.

The cuts are coming. States just don’t know where or when.

Lou Cannon, a Summerland resident, is a longtime national political writer and acclaimed presidential biographer. His most recent book — co-authored with his son, Carl — is Reagan’s Disciple: George W. Bush’s Troubled Quest for a Presidential Legacy. Cannon also is an editorial adviser to State Net Capitol Journal, which published this column originally. Click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.




comments powered by Disqus

» on 01.15.13 @ 09:43 AM

I just wish that someone would see the similarity of continuing to raise the roof instead of finding what is causing the s@#t to rise. After working all of my life to seek economic freedom according to all the rules in place, it sure seems illogical for the government to take away all the security. I have ample reason to give up but I shall continue to fight for rights I have earned than capitulate to those who would deny me those rights.

» on 01.15.13 @ 10:01 AM

“...with the national debt at $16 trillion and growing exponentially.”

Sloppy language. The national debt is not growing “exponentially.”  That would mean the annual deficit is going up by multiples, which it’s not.  The deficit actually declined last year, and is estimated to decline substantially in future years.

The key to reducing the deficit is to get the economy growing more quickly, which will increase tax revenues and reduce outlays for unemployment, Medicaid, and numerous services. Cutting expenditures and entitlements now, as the Republicans propose, will only depress the economy—which actually will increase the deficit!

Lou Cannon should know better.

» on 01.15.13 @ 11:19 AM

Too many lazy people on welfare food stamps and section 8, and the people with jobs are tired of it.

Government unions have bankrupt most states, California is doomed..Retire at 50 with six figures—can you say B.K

Tax revolt soon..Another Boston tea party will happen..

» on 01.15.13 @ 08:49 PM

Drmerk, you are right that growing the economy is key. The problem is government is really lousy at it and entitlements are a net loser. So how in the world is raising taxes to pay for more crap that actually consumes wealth or value going to help? I agree with many on the left who rightly criticize the right for propping up the banking/finance industry. This sector of the economy is a net consumer of wealth as well. Banks don’t make anything; they manage wealth at a cost.

But if you cannot see that government is no different, then you are just as bad as those who cheer lead Wall Street. Raising taxes generally reduces revenue to government while simultaneously reducing capital in the markets. The key to economic expansion is to free up more capital for investing in real intrinsic wealth building investments.

There are two agencies in the federal government that actually produce a decent return on the tax dollars they consumed. Do you know which ones? Venture a guess. Here is a clue, both are scheduled for drastic cuts by Obama. Outside of these two agencies most government infrastructure is either revenue neutral or a net loss and as I said entitlements are huge losers. The entitlement programs at the federal level are by and far the largest consumers of taxes. What does that tell you?

I have said it time again that you can have all the nanny state feel good crap your little progressive liberal European socialist worshipping hearts desire as long as you find a way to pay for it, without bankrupting the country. You, drmerk hit the nail on the head. Now demonstrate you understand what you said.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

 

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.